tv Dupes CSPAN March 12, 2017 8:00am-9:21am EDT
this presentation was recorded in 2010 and was hosted by the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. it's an hour and 20 minutes. >> thank you, john. i am delighted to introduce paul kengor today, the director of the center for vision and values, which focuses on advancing freedom with christian scholarship. paul is also a visiting fellow with the hoover institution on war, revolution and peace at stanford university. he's a frequent contributor to msnbc, c-span and fox news. in addition he's written for "the new york times," wall street journal, political science quarterly and many other publications.
among the numerous books he has offered are " the crusader, ronald reagan and the fall of communism," " god and of ronald reagan," " god and george w. bush," and " william p. clark, ronald reagan's top hand. today i am excited paul will be focusing on his newly released book, "dupes however service have been manipulated -- how progressives have been manipulated for centuries." we are looking forward to hearing your discussion on this aspect of history the prominent role of the duped. please help me welcome dr. paul kengor. [applause] >> thank you, heather. john and everybody here heritage, everybody for coming. lee edwards. i really struggled with how to organize this talk because i turned in the manuscript of two
250,000 words and about 1000 pages, and i think "god and ronald reagan" was around 100,000 words. it gives you an idea of how enormous the task was and how many dupes are out there. i am not joking when i say this could be volume one in a multi volume stat -- set. i did not know where to stop. there were a number of people i thought it would have full chapters on, but i had so much information, i would just have a box marked henry wallace. i could do the whole book on this guy. first, i am going to give you a little overview on why i did this, why i chose this subject, and then work upwards ronald logically through three cases that i think are very telling and represent different types of individuals, academics, somebody
involved in education, a writer, and a politician. specifically, i will talk about john dewey, frank marshall davis, and ted kennedy. during the q&a, there are a lot of other people we could talk about, including actors, all kinds of people in hollywood, humphrey bogart, and also, as you will notice in the appendix of the book, i found a bogart in the communist usa archives, and i look at that very carefully as to whether that could be humphrey bogart. that is something we could also talk about during the q&a. first, why i did this. three components. scholarship, partisanship, and redemption. i noticed nobody had ever done a book on the role of dupes in american history.
i did a google search on the term, and may be two or three books in the library of congress have the word in the title, and yet it's a word that goes back to the founding of the republic itself. you would probably be surprised to know that george washington used the word in his farewell address. adam smith, who was not an american, of course, but was around at the founding, in his book "the wealth of nations, talks about dupes. but it took an ugly upsurge with the bolshevik revolution in russia in october of 1917, and then after that, even more specifically, with the founding of the common term in march of 1919. if you are following this chronologically, it gets really bad with the communist party in
chicago in september of 1919. i was looking at one particular cache of documents in particular, which are right over here at the library of congress, there are hundreds of reels of microfiche. by the way, when i would go there in the summer time when professors and academics are off, i never once, even one time, was told by an archivist, oh, you can't have that because somebody else has it. hardly anyone is even looking at this stuff. that is because most academic historians are on the left, and when you see what these files say, they are a real indictment of many things that the left believes. among them, i started spinning the different wheels of microfiche, and one of the first documents you come to is the
september 1919 document from the communist party of america and its founding in chicago, illinois. i will hold these up. this one right here, communist party of america, looks like a good reproduction. these are 100 years old documents. this is from the executive secretary, and it's there he briefed. he's sending it to the folks at the communist international in moscow. i extend greetings to the communist party of russia. hail to the deck tater ship and the proletariat. long live the united soviet socialist republic. long live the communists. sincerely yours.
today, he is buried under the wall of the kremlin. when you see these, you learn right off that the american communist party was not just another political party. they were loyal soviet patriots. there materials ended up in the communist national files in moscow. we only have them now because they were declassified by the yeltsin government in the early 1990's. so you see right off this is why i think scholars on the left are ignoring this stuff. what the anti-communists said all along was right. there was this tight bond, this inseparable bond between the american party and the soviet party. another document in the system again, chicago, the party.
this is from november 24, 1919. and it says to the bureau of the communist international, a, as international secretary again, charles rothenberg of the american party, i make applications for admission of the communist party of america to the bureau of the communist international. they are filing their formal membership application. it is a three page document, and you get to the very end last page just a few lines, and it says here the final struggle of the kindest proletariat -- communist proletariat will be waged at the united states. our conquests of power alone assuring the world soviet republic. realizing all this, the communist party prepares for the struggle. long live the communist international, long live the revolution. it turn only yours, the international secretary. once again, you see the connection. why are dupes so important?
dupes are critical because they are people on the progress of -- progressive left, liberal left who were not communists themselves. but sometimes ran on the same circles, had some of the same ideas, shared some of the same sympathies, the redistribution of wealth, workers' rights, nationalization, different issues. they were not as far to the left as communists, but over a little bit. i started finding throughout the files, evidence in letter after letter, document after document where the police in moscow and in the usa had headquarters in chicago and wherever very -- were very closely laying out plans and campaigns to try to deliberately dupe the progressives and liberals. go to this rally. do this, don't let them know that you are a communist. you are charged with being a communist, say that it is redbaiting. later in the 1950's, it's mccarthyism.
deny that you are an actual communist. the progressives would do this and say we are not communists, they aren't communists, and they would say yes we are we know they are and the anti-communist slav be the bad guy. they would be their reprobates, the paranoia of anti-communist trauner plights and caveman. so the dupes were critical. the american communist party at its peak membership in the 1930's only got to be about 100,000 members. so they could never really get any popular support. to try to get larger popular support for the cause, they had to enlist progressives and liberals. that's why i looked at this. they targeted the progressive liberal left, but this gets to an important point i want to make on partisanship. they didn't always have success and i appreciate the chance to
say this to the conservative audience in particular. there were a lot of good anti-communist liberals and anti-communist democrats who were not duped. and i have got dozens and dozens of examples. arthur schlesinger, jr., wrote a piece for life magazine in 1946, which at that point was along with time probably the largest circulation and all of america, and center said communists have succeeded in hiding their true face from american liberals. the reds are posing a most serious danger to liberals, engaged in a massive attack on the moral fabric of the american left. george f kennan said the same kind of thing, trying to warn people on the left don't be duped by these guys. don't be taken in. the list of onetime liberals who changed, who learned once, boy was i duped, and changed and
were not duped again, humphrey bogart, eleanor roosevelt, paul douglas, john do we, from hollywood, lucille ball, olivia dehavilland, jimmy cagney, edward g. robinson, melvyn douglas, and also later anti-communist crusader conservative republican president named ronald reagan, who admitted in 1946 that he had been misled, that he had been duped as well. democrats, on the other hand, there were anti-communist democrats and liberals from the very beginning who i think were never duped and right away recognized the danger the communists posed to the plans and policies, and i am going to surprise you here. the first president who had to deal with this at the founding of the party, the founding of the american communist party was 1919 and woodrow wilson.
woodrow wilson may have been the man of the left but he was an anticommunist and he was stridently antibolshevik. described bolsheviks as barbarians, tyrants and terrorists. exact words that willson used. harry truman, same kind of thing. jfk warned us about our atheistic foe and the godless communist conspiracy. right? they realized, these guys did, that the communists were not their friends and they went after the causes they held to -- held dear. they attacked wilson's league of nations. they attacked fdr's new deal. the documents in the archives on this are stunning, almost as if the boys at ct usa wanted to report back to the boys in moscow that they were attacking liberal causes. and here's one. the 1920 presidential election.
this is from the united communist party. don't vote, strike. boycott the election. overthrow the capitalist government. establish the soviet government. not just another political party. not just another political party. when you strike, the court enjoins you. the police beat you. soldiers shoot you. that is the capital the government is for. the united communist party is the only party that put up candidates for this purpose. boycott the election, don't vote, strike. standby soviet russia. here is communist labor, put out by the communist labor party of america, february of 1920. guess who is on the front?
woodrow wilson, who they are portraying as an indian carrying a scalp. ok? that is what they thought of the progressives. liberals, communists are not your friends. quit defending these guys. the anti-communists were right. here they are in 1933, mayday, protesting the roosevelt administration. putting together a march. demonstrated against hunger, fascism, and war. the new deal is a blow against the workers and increases profits for wall street. all this was done as a capitalist way out of the crisis. all this shows how the american government -- this is the roosevelt administration -- is moving headlong toward fascism and war. roosevelt, fascist. that's the american communist party. here's another one. mayday, same period. they did this all over the country in 1933, condemning the
roosevelt program of, quote, forced labor for the unemployed,unquote. who had the answer? lenin. lenin shows the way. he shows the self the only way to jobs, land and freedom. so that's what they were sending around. that's the kind of thing that they were doing. and while they are doing all of that, they are also a very contemptuously, very carefully, very strategically trying to get progressives and liberals to join their cause. so i will give you three cases, three examples. john dewey. john dewey i include another -- among the group i called the progresses and these were people in the 1920's and 30's, american progressives, western progressives, british as well as american, who were taken to the soviet union in the 1920's and 1930's and very carefully manipulated by soviet handlers.
it's extraordinary to see how they did this. it's shocking. and it's shocking to see how many took the bait as well. and because the woodrow wilson administration wouldn't recognize the bolsheviks, because the early british government wouldn't recognize the bolsheviks, winston churchill told boy george you might as well recognize sodomy before you recognize the bolsheviks. the progressives were upset by that in the 20's. so stalin and the late 1920's started bringing american western progressives to the soviet union to take a carefully managed tours to try to get them to come back to the united states and write articles about how great the soviet union is and they are finding this new world and by the way, the united states government ought to recognize the government. and these are the progressives. hg wells. after a meeting with stalin in 1934, i never met a man more candid, fair and honest.
everyone trusts him. everyone trusts him. it is the start of a great era, 1934. maybe there is a stalin. likewise he had been impressed by this refreshing and amazing little man. amazing little man. his fellow socialists, bernard shaw, met with stalin and you're going to think this is sarcastic. it's not. it's completely serious. george bernard shaw. we cannot afford to give ourselves a moral errors when our most enterprising neighbor, the soviet union, unanimously judiciously liquidates the handful of the exploiters to make the world safe for honest man. if you see the actual original notes from the meeting which lady astor and other people had recorded, that was precisely, precisely what stalin told
bernard shaw. he parroted the exact line stalin wanted them to say. somebody who wasn't taken by this but was a witness was the malcolm muggeridge. and on his return, he commented on what he saw, talking of the american progressives. they are in questionably one of the wonders of the age, and i shall cherish them as a memory until i die, the spectacle of them traveling with optimism through a national countryside, wondering about squalor with overcrowded soviet towns, listening with unshakable faith to the patterns as carefully a indoctrinated guide is repeating like schoolchildren a multiplication table the bogus statistics and slogans and field to them. to continue there were honest advocates of the killing of cattle who looked at the headquarters of the ogpu with
tears of gratitude in their august. the proportional representation is eagerly with the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat was explained to them. get this one, there were ernest clergyman who walked reverently through soviet anti-god museums and reverently turned they pages of atheist literature. earnestly watched them across the square bombing planes targeting the sky. ernest socialists who stood aside the overcrowded and muttered, if only we had something like this in england. not only was mugredge mystified, by the naivete that he saw among these progressives, but so were the soviets. mugredge said the almost unbelievable credulity of the mostly university educated tourists, astonished even the soviet officials that were used to handling foreign visitors.
in the book, i quote a romanian intelligence chief during the cold war, who died a few years ago. he talked about handling western visitors like senator ted kennedy. and he worked with the soviet press agency. he said, among the my duties was to get the western progressives from the moment they got off the plane at the moscow international airport, among the chief tasks was to keep them permanently intoxicated the entire time they were in the soviet union. a lot of these guys came to see the rot of the soviet system and it disturbed them and eat at -- -- ate at their conscious is, because they thought, here is what i am working for, but but what do i do, how do i get out of here? how do i take care of my family.
they were depressed because the progressives would come to the country and no matter how outrageous the line of exaggeration and propaganda they fed them, they swallowed it again, and again, and again. they resolved to believe anything they were told by the spokesman. resolved to believe anything. one of them was john dewey. one of them was john dewey, a founder of american public education. and probably the single greatest influence on american public schools to this day. whose books have been used a hundred years now to train generation after generation of public-school teachers. columbia teachers college, department of education, teachers all over the country,
this guys books are like sacred scripture. in some departments of education. dewey, did you know this? i did not know this until i started learning about dewey. dewey's books were being rapidly translated into russian by the bolsheviks as early as 1918. the bolsheviks had taken over in october, 1917, and you immediately get a vicious civil war in russia from 1918-1921. 7 million men, women, and children died in that war. the bolsheviks were completely broke or preoccupied, but they realized how important john dewey's works were to the soviet collective communist state that they were trying to put in place. so they immediately started translating them. 1918, dewey's schools of tomorrow published. in russian.
1919, dewey's how we think published in russia. 1920, dewey, the school and society, published in russian. dewey's preeminent classic. what is it? 1921 democracy in education. democracy and education. 1921, publishes a 62 page pamphlet. that book as the dewey biographers said, became the bible of columbia teachers college and the soviets love it and adored it. you would think dewey perhaps once he got wind of this and probably felt bad that the architects of this collectivist totalitarian society adore his books. no, he was flattered. he was flattered. sort of mutual admiration society started developing between dewey and the bolshevik hierarchy, and so in the summer of 1928, john dewey along with
25 american educators in various universities made a trip to the soviet union where they were given the full potemkin village treatment. all the factories, ride around in lincoln limousines, caviar, everything you could imagine. he went there realizing the possibility that they were going to try to manipulate him. he said the warning that i would be fooled by being taken to places, that's not going to possibly happen. so, he came back and wrote a six part series for the new republic. the political bible of the american left for a long time. published from november 14, 1928 through december 19, 1928. i have a long chapter on this in
the book, so i won't read all the quotes, but it is astonishing to read these articles. it is really astonishing. john dewey, my mind was in a whirl. readjustment was difficult. i lived somewhat dazed. the liberation of the people that i saw. the outstanding fact is that russia is in a revolution involving the release of human powers of such an unprecedented scale that it is of in countable significance not only for this country but for the whole world . he writes about how impressed he was with the restoration of russian churches taking place under lenin and stalin. they were blowing them up. john dewey didn't know about the demolishing of churches going on at the time.
how? he didn't know that? that's what they were doing, they were blowing them up. there's 46 churches left by the 1940s. how could he not know this? this one, i'm not making it up. the bolsheviks, how they are doing things. well, in spite of secret police, inquisitions, arrests and deportations of businessmen, industrialists, and farmers, aside from exiling party opponents, life for the masses goes on with regularity, safety, and decorum aside from the other things. the external routine of life is more settled and secure in russia than any other country in
all of europe, and this is not what i'm being told, he said, what i'm seeing. the revolution, he pronounced, was a great success, a great success. i think the schools are a factor in the evolution of russian communism. his very last article for the "new republic," dewey wrote this. political recognition for russia on the part of the united states is a necessary antecedent step two bringing about the kind of relations in the interest of both countries and the world. i went to world with no conviction on that subject, but now here i am telling you i think our government should recognize russia which was precisely, precisely the number one priority of what sal lin -- stalin and the bolsheviks wanted in bringing these progressives over, that they would go back home and call for recognition. so that's dewey. i'll give you a few more examples here. frank marshall davis.
i spent about four years on this one, and i won't take you through the entire four years, i promise you, but he is relevant right now because he was, using my words carefully, a mentor to the current president of the united states, barak obama. now, that was in obama's years in the latter 1970's in hawaii. and i first started reading about frank marshall davis in 2007, 2008. i heard conservatives on talk radio and elsewhere are he was a communist. take it to the bank, he influenced obama. while hearing all of this stuff, i have spread all over my desk all these committee reports, senate judiciary committee, run by democrats, house committee on internal security, run by democrats. house committee on american
activity, almost all of these committees are you run by democrats. chris dodd's father, thomas dodd. francis walter, representative i court, jack kennedy was an anticommunist on some of these committees. i'm hearing this and thinking what does davis really believe, and how close was he to obama? august 2, 2008, "ap" piece. davis was a constant figure in obama's early life. he was an important influence who obama looked to like a father, a mentor for advice on living other things. obama in "dreams by my father," i was intrigued by his hard earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes, all right, behind the hooded eyes.
he gave me advice on women, on life, all these examples. i started looking into different documents, and among the things i found, he was called to testify before the senate in 1956 for communist associations. he pleaded the 5th amendment. these are in the book, and i think it's page 256 or 257. next year in 1957, a senate report actually listed frank marshall davis as an identified member of the communist party of the usa. congress just didn't go and say that somebody was a member of a communist party. they would say this person has associations with groups, and here they said he was a member of the communist party, usa. i looked at different biographers. john edgar tidwell, who is the preeminent biographer of davis.
others, most of these guys are on the left. university of massachusetts professors, harvard ph.d.. they said he was a party member. i read from a kansas professor, and that book, he said davis actually joined the communist party and produces a letter he dates around 1943 where davis says in his own writing that he joined the communist party. ok. finally, after looking at all of those things, not long before the book went to press, i found -- i got davis' actual fbi filed -- file, which was declassified through a foia request by a fellow researcher. it's 600 pages long, and as soon as you read frank marshall davis' fbi file, you can see clearly it takes a half hour of reading to see the guy was a communist. very, very, very clear.
in the book i give 10-12 pages from that fbi file, including on page 507, this page which among other information lists frank's communist party card number, 47344 which is, i mean, that's hard evidence. which is, i mean, that's hard evidence. i recently read some of the stuff out there accusing howard zinn of being a party member. i read his file, and there's not things like communist party numbers in his file. when you find cp numbers, you really got something, and by the way, those numbers are fully consistent with other people who joined the party at the time including hollywood ten members who you are probably being told at your universities were all innocent lambs, you know, liberals and progressives
practicing their civil liberties dragged before joe mccarthy. october 1947 called to washington, d.c. to testify. john howard lawson was one of the ten. communist party card number 47275. i got some of frank marshall's weekly columns he wrote in hawaii from 1949-1950 which was the communist party usa organ in hawaii. -- organization in hawaii. i got it through the help of two tremendous groups of college students. one found them online, and the other who is actually in hawaii, and i'm amazed is here today. i'll keep it secret, i promise.
she went into a library of the university of hawaii and got the columns, hard copies. what you see here reading davi'' columns is just how anti-american the communist party was in the united states and the latter 1940's. who is president in the united states after world war ii? harry truman. what party? so he was the enemy. they mercilessly salve rajed -- savaged harry truman. davis took him apart and turned him into a demon in these articles. colonialists, imperialist, truman, george marshall, you name it. examples, february 9, 1950, here davis really tows the party line portraying harry truman as the butcher of hiroshima.
by the way, harry truman dropped the bomb on japan to spare a land invasion that would have been joined by not just american and british troops, but russian troops. stalin supported this, but once the war is over, truth doesn't matter. the only truth that matters is there is no truth. the only morality that matters is that that furthers class interests. so, truman, who did what we wanted on august, 19 for i-5, is now the butcher of hiroshima. -- 1945, is the butcher of hiroshima. this is from february 9, 1950. when we dropped the bomb on hiroshima, we believed the world was ours.
having defeated the access powers on the battle front, we were now ready to show the russians who was the boss of the world. harry truman's goal was to rule russia, was to rule russia. in addition to that, the accused truman and democrats in particular of wanting to turn west germany back to the nazis. wanting to turn west germany back to the nazis. the marshall plan was a sham. a policy, as davis puts it, to re-enslave the colonial peoples around the world, the black and yellow peoples around the world as he wrote in this piece. it was to reenslave the world. if you studied this period, the only people making that argument anywhere in the world were stalin and molotov. and cpusa.
quotes davis, "the big industrialists who financed hitler have been handed back their factories and old-school ties with wall street are almost as strong as they ever were. america's policy of denaziification is a sham. what kind of west germany is america helping back to its feet? it is the germany of the master race theory. the fascists we sought to exterminate in world war ii as the greatest threat to mankind are now our partners. what do you say we kiss and make up?" as i was reading that column at the time, senator obama had gone to berlin, he was still senator, and made this speech about how americans and germans stood together in the days of the berlin blockade and days after world war ii to resist the soviet union.
not all americans did. frank marshall davis was on the other side of that. another piece that haunts me, january 26, 1950 column, called free enterprise or socialism, and in this piece, davis' demon is not harry truman, not the democrats, but general motors, gm. davis is furious that this gigantic corporation called gm made a profit last year of $600 million, and he's trying to
frame gm as an aggressive monopoly. davis concludes in the face of still rising unemployment and mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we have to decide to oust the monopolies, and restore a system of competing free enterprise or let the government own and operate our major industries. if davis could have, if he could have, he would have nationalized gm in 1950. no question. how relevant is all of this today with president obama? i mean, we can go into that and talk about that in the q and a, but i read the columns, went a little bit not exactly in the order of my discovery of the things, i read the columns first and then found the fbi files and the other things, but at first i thought with davis that i was dealing with possibly a progressive liberal duped by communists, and then i realized this was progressives and liberals, and so i realized i had to have this character in the book. -- this was a communist who duped progressives and liberals, so i realized i had to have this character in the book. now, how exactly relevant is it to today in what's going on in washington and how does it apply to today? i mean, we could talk about that and debate that and you can make conclusions. i don't go into that, but i
cover davis in length. one last example, and i'll wrap up and take your questions. senator ted kennedy, the late senator, ted kennedy, who is hard to get a handle on, and i've been asked if i consider kennedy a dupe or something else all together. i found things from kennedy in the vietnam war in the 1960s that he said about our troops that are almost identical to things he said about the troops in 2003, 2004, and 2005 in the middle east. it was really startling. i didn't realize all the things kennedy said about our troops in vietnam, for example, in the 1960s, but the major revelation that i have on kennedy, which i know a lot of you are familiar with, is in may 1983 document that is in the central committee archives in the soviet union, and my understanding is that the
archives have since been resealed, and so you can't go in now and get that document, but that's ok because it's in the book and you can read it. i've one-upped the russians and i'm excited about that. it's in the appendix in the book, five pages in russian -- by the way, i've been told that the translation that's in the book is actually pretty kind to kennedy. it's charitable. if you actually read it in russian, it's worse. it's both in russian. it's in english also, and on the very back of the book, the very top of page 1, translated in english is listed there, but here's what the document says. does this not grab you right away? special importance, committee on state security of the ussr, kgb,
may 14, 1983, and then this subject head is bound to peak your curiosity. regarding senator kennedy's request to the general secretary of the communist party. ok. opening line, on 9/10 of this year, this is 1983, president reagan, right? reagan is president. made the speech in march of 1983, evil empire speech, reelection campaign coming up in 1984. on 9/10 of this year, senator edward kennedy's close friend and they know who this was, was in moscow. the senator charged him to convey the following message through confidential contacts to the general secretary of the communist party in the soviet union. senator kennedy like other rational people is troubled by
the current state of the soviet american relations. this relationship coupled with a general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. here we go. the main reason for this is reagan's belligerence and his firm commitment to deploy middle range weapons within western europe. he goes through the document and lists different reasons why reagan is gaining in popularity. this is fascinating. you have an admission from the soviet head of the kgb, victor who is really interpreting the author from senator kennedy. so, and admission from him as well that reaganomics is working. it's in a private letter. reagan is really popular and cruising to easy reelection, oh no. what are we going to do?
well, they go through there, and then is has given this, given the current state of affairs, basically, reagan's reelection coming up, what can we do? what can we do to stop this? to reverse reagan's dangerous defense policies? well, then they get to the core of the offer. kennedy proposes the following, and they give one, two, three different steps here. basically what kennedy believed according to this document, what kennedy believed is that the soviets wanted peace, and this increasing in cold war tensions was the fault of reagan, and the soviets needed help in better communicating their peaceful intentions to the american media and americans generally. as this letter says, reagan was good at propaganda. you need to find a way to get around reagan's smoke screen of propaganda.
how do you better communicate directly to the american people? kennedy is very impressed with this, not impressed with reagan. so, they argue here, kennedy would go to moscow and be with the soviet leadership, even talks about bringing senator mark hatfield, a liberal republican, with him. they talk to them, help arrange for a soviet media tour in the united states. basically, a kind of a public relations tour in the united states, a kind of a pr campaign. those are my words, pr campaign, to communicate peaceful intentions. high-level soviet officials would also come to the united
states to talk directly to the american media, have sit down interviews, and they even mentioned in hereby name walter cronkite and barbara walters to do interviews with those folks, and they could directly communicate to the american people. now, what happened with all of this? by the way, then it winds up in 1984 where it talks about the election campaign is coming up, and then there's a discussion as to senator kennedy's president -- presidential prospects in the 1984 race, and so it finishes up with that. whatever became of this? this is may 1983. well, the russian got sick at the end of that year, died in february of 1984. they talked about this happening in september of 1983. anybody remember your chronology of cold war history? what happened over the alaska territory in 1983? the soviets shot down the korean airliner, killing 260 nine people, including 629 -- 269
people, including 61 americans, 007, and initially denied doing it, so that kind of put an end to this apparently, not very impressive was all of that. now, for people who are listening or watching on c-span and who are democrats and angry about this and don't want to believe it because they like kennedy and don't like reagan. i got news for you, kennedy did a very, very similar thing to jimmy carter in march of 1980s, -- 1980, and we know this from the archives that came into the united states with vastly defect -- with a defector in 1992. recently, president carter when promoting his diaries talked about how he believed senator kennedy tried to undermine him on health care, right? because kennedy was challenging carter for the democratic primary in 1980. he didn't mention anything about
this, but on march 5, 1980, kennedy, again, through the same contact, the same liaison in moscow had a message delivered to the soviet leadership. to brezhnev, in this case. as the archives characterize this, here's what kennedy was arguing. the carter administration is trying to distort the peace-loving ideas behind the brezhnev proposals. the atmosphere of tension is being fueled by carter. the carter white house is feeding public opinion with nonsense about the soviet military threat and soviet ambitions for military expansion in the persian gulf. what's so jaw-dropping about this is according to this, kennedy again is concerned about rising soviet tensions, cold war tensions, and he's blaming it
not on the soviets, but again on the president in the white house. who is jimmy carter. we have carter on the cover of a book kissing brezhnev. carter was anything but hard on the soviets. he was very accommodating to them. june 1979, he kisses the russian -- kisses brezhnev at the vienna summit, and then six months later, talk about betrayed with a kiss, carter is celebrating christmas and gets news that the red army just invaded afghanistan, and then here just three months after the soviets invade afghanistan and kennedy is concerned about the rising cold war tensions which according to the archives are the fault of carter, wow, wow. put it in context. what was going on on march 5, 1980?
democratic presidential primaries, where jimmy carter, the incumbent democratic president was being challenged by senator ted kennedy for that so what happened in 1980 with carter seems to also have happened to some extent in 1983 with ronald reagan as well in both cases. well, i could give other examples of this, but i'm watching the clock, and i should probably stop, and i want to take your questions, but that's a look at do we, -- john dewey, frank marshall davis, and ted kennedy. there's other people as well, but i'll stop there and take some of your questions. thank you. [applause] right here. >> what do you account for the growing support that the communist party gives the democrats and people's weekly world and so forth? i mean, for crying out loud in
thing on the front home page of the website, and more recently they are constantly raving about president obama's policies. paul: yes, it's a remarkable thing. the one nation rally that was held not long ago he or, -- here, i was shocked to see that when you went to the website listing the endorsing groups, communist party usa was right there in the open as an endorser. what's interesting to me about that having written a book on duping and how the public duping them for 100 years, going back to the 1910s is in the past in the those rallies, the liberals like the plague would -- they would avoid the communists, and the only way to get them at those groups was secretly, covertly.
and here, in this case, it was arms wide open, come on it and, no problem. one of the most troubling examples i give in the book -- and i had to look at this again, again, and again, and i still can't believe it. there was a front group called peace mobilization. by the way, for the people listening who hate the house un-american activities committee, this group was exposed by huac. and this group of accommodated hitler's. so, the house committee did more good things than you guys are willing to acknowledge, but the american peace mobilization, their job was to toe the soviet
line, represent moscow's position, bring representatives to the rally. they were created, think about this, august 1939 hitler and stalin sign a nonaggression pact to not fight each other, so because of that, the american communist movement in 1940 and 1941 protested american lend -- lease to britain, aiding britain. basically, accommodated hitler because he was in an alliance with stalin. that group, the american peace mobilization took that position. we have in the book the actual documents where they are ordering the making thf group in -- creation of this group in chicago in 1940. they went and protested. fdr is a fascist trying to start another war. don't send aid to britain, and meanwhile britain is dying
because of hitler. that's the position they took. they picketed outside the white house. "washington post" covered it. "new york times" covered it. they got all kinds of news. one of the leaders was fred field, of the vanderbilt fortune. he was interviewed in an article. congress never mentioned it once that he was a communist. but they were picketing outside of the white house, and this is so incredible. on june 22nd, 1941, june 22, 1941 -- and i have the "new york times" article that describes this. they put down the pickets and chanted a pro-war chant and went home. anybody know what happened then? the soviet union was invaded by hitler's germany. hit ller and the germans betrayed the hitler's stalin pact on a dime overnight. the people in the american peace mobilization became prowar, and they changed so cynical.
they changed it from american peace mobilization to the american people's mobilization. they didn't even change the acronym. they kept the acronym, and they started pushing vigorously for lend lease, united states to enter the war, fdr was no longer a fascist. now they could be cp-usa could be pro-american because they are allied with stalin so it was really a great day for them. the "new york times" article on the subject is titled "clergymen group opposes war aide" that's the group duped progressives. the communists showed up at the rallies saying blessed are the peacemakers; right? turn the other cheek.
of course, not knowing they are communists blowing up churches and jailing priests, and far too many people especially on the religious left, herb, the great excommunist himself, i asked him when i started the book if there was a particular group that was duped more than any other, and he said, yes, progressive pastors were the biggest suckers of them all, and american peace mobilization is a good example of that. yeah, go ahead. oh, you need a microphone. >> al from medium. in your analysis, how this started historically and how effective as propaganda do you see the way hollywood through films have promoted communism in the u.s.? >> yeah, great question. it's scandalous and horrible. it's absolutely horrible.
i would say that hollywood are still dupes for the communists because in the grave, the communists are in the grave now, and hollywood is still protecting them. protecting them as if they were never communists to begin with. you have these hollywood ten figures who are almost all party members we now know are called to washington to testify, and they get a group of liberal hollywood actors and actresses who they lied to and told them, we're liberals and progressives like you. we're not communist. humphrey bogart said they checked every member in the group. we made sure there were no pinks, no reds. they were careful about this, and there's no sympathy among rt the left for the fact that the communists lied to the liberals on the left and tarnish the their reputations. no problem whatsoever with that.
the created the group called the committee for the 1st amendment, these hollywood liberals did, and they flew to washington. humphrey bogart, lauren bacall, danny kaye, judy garland, gene kelly, katharine hepburn. these people were duped really, really, really bad. they were on the cover of the daily worker on every issue. crusaders for the first amendment, here they are. they get to washington and some of these other people are called on the stand, and boy, big surprise, congress has evidence. they just don't, you know, they are not just a bunch of red-baiters. they bring them up there and john howard lawson says here are the front groups who were a member of, here are the articles you wrote, this and that. here is your communist card number, five digits, and they
present this evidence, and lawson and trumbo, you know what they did? they stood up -- fascist, nazi, american concentration camps. that is what they do when they are nailed, when they are caught, and when these guys were caught as being communists, they called their accusers nazis. and they were taken out. and then bogart and these folks said, oh boy, were we duped, were we lied to. lauren bacall -- by the way, the airplane they got on in los angeles was called the red star. [laughter] prof. kengor: lauren bacall said right away, i should have thought, oh no. now this whole era is portrayed as joe mccarthy on a wild rampage, witch hunter, persecuting all these people, but he was not on the house un-american activities then, he
was a senator. but every anti-communist was portrayed as a joe mccarthy. one of the cofounders of the aclu -- roger baldwin, read his 1928 book "liberty under the soviets." one of the founders was harry ward, a methodist minister. i quote a piece he wrote for protestant digest. he is warning a decade and a half before mccarthy about the next red scare. first it was mitchell palmer, woodrow wilson -- both democrats. and it was martin of texas, democrat. then it was this guy, now this guy. they would have found their joe
mccarthy in any event, and that is not to defend any of mccarthy's excesses. but we now have the evidence of how many of these people were guilty and the way they lied and misled people, and it is very disturbing. other questions? >> i wonder if you have any comment on the role of american corporations as dupes for america's foes such as henry ford and the ford corporation, and also arm and hammer, and also now that the flow of corporate money into elections has become -- the floodgates have been opened, if you have any concern about american companies that want to do business with communist countries like china, either selling their products were buying raw materials from them, using their influence on american politicians, which is only going to grow, to force
american policy in a direction that is more sympathetic to china and less sympathetic to the american worker. prof. kengor: well, yeah. i'll cut you off because i haven't really looked into it. i didn't find much -- although arm and hammer was originally on my list. i eventually -- i am serious when i say this is going to be a multivolume set. it's an extraordinary thing. i mean, so many different people were manipulated, but no, i didn't look into any particular corporations. yes? go ahead. >> yes, i was just wondering what the -- where the american socialist party plays into the narrative with politicians like al smith. were they duped too or
sympathetic to the communist party? prof. kengor: it is a complicated question. i have in the book a really interesting document i found in the archives from the 1932 presidential campaign, where communist party usa was just torching everybody. they hated the republicans. they hated fdr. they hated the socialists. i mean, you know, so they were going after everybody. i mean, it's amazing too, the anger that was there among american communists. i was surprised by that. when you would see these documents, the fights that they had among each other -- so and so, fraud, exposing daily worker as a stool pigeon. that would be the order from the latest meeting minutes. so yeah, that, and also i would
update this. in fact, to connect this to john's earlier question about modern day progresses -- one of the groups i looked at is the group progressives for obama. it is really starting to now cloud the whole progressive/liberal thing. i have always understood progressives and liberals to be on the left, but not the communist left, right? there's variations, a full spectrum of beliefs. you have the very far left, marxists, and you move over, democratic socialism. but this group progressives for obama, one of the four initiators was tom hayden. one of the 94 signers was jane fonda. of course, we know what happened in vietnam. mark rudd, who was with sds in columbia, was one of the 94 signers. they were not just didn't
radicals, antiwar, they were communists, followers of che or fidel. one was accused of being an actual stalinist. it is amazing how many of these people are, one, now in academia for one thing, but are now out calling themselves progressives for obama. and so what do they really believe? are they now just lifting the progressive label? have they changed their views? it's hard to say. i quote in the book a fascinating assessment from mark rudd of the 2008 election where rudd says, you know, obama, he did it. he did it. he didn't blow it. he said just the right things and took the right policy positions to be able to attract just enough moderates and independents and crossover voters. he didn't blow it.
he did it, he says, and i agree with this strategy. any other strategy in this political environment invites sure defeat. obama did it. and it's fascinating that for rudd and some of these folks, obama is the first democratic party presidential nominee they ever supported. they hated jack kennedy. they hated lbj. they dismissed carter as a born-again baffoon, that is the language some of these people use. they see in obama somebody who is far enough to the left for them. it's interesting. it's very telling, and rudd's point -- after the november 4, 2008 elections, i do what i always do on a wednesday morning before i go to class. i got the printout of the latest exit poll data to see how americans voted and how they self identify, and every single one of these -- this has been
going on for 20 years now -- the american public has described itself as conservative over liberal by 40% to 20%. gallup did a huge poll in 2009, 40% to 20%. by the way, academia is 90% to 10% liberal to conservative, and they preach diversity. it has been 40% to 20%, and with the election of obama, who the national journal called in 2007 the most liberal member of the senate -- to the left of barbara boxer, hillary clinton, you name it. when i woke up on the morning of wednesday, november 2008 -- ok, i'm going to see a change. it is going to be 40% liberal. it's got to be. 40% to 20% again. so you had this incredible situation where a self-identifying and self professing conservative electorate by a margin of two to one goes in and decisively votes
for president a man the national journal ranked the most liberal member of the senate in 2007. quite unprecedented. how did that happen? you have got to go into the reasons why bush lost, why people didn't like bush, or why john mccain lost -- in many ways, a vote against mccain was a vote against bush. and many people were taken by the concept of change -- what does change mean? but the progressives for obama people were thrilled with this. the american public finally voted the way that tom hayden and jane fonda and mark rudd and these folks had wanted them to vote. the same people who, by the way, in 1968 targeted the democratic national convention, not the republican, the democratic convention in chicago. democrats, liberals, the communists are not your friends.
quit defending them. but as james burnham said, for the left, the preferred enemy is always to the right, so it's the anti-communists that consume their outrage more than the pro-communists. it is not that they are procommunist, but anti-communists are neanderthals. i don't like them. >> time for one more? prof. kengor: one more, sure. it is not that they think stalin is worse than mccarthy, but in their lectures, they complain about joe mccarthy and not joe stalin. >> i'm coming from a country that overcame soviets. nobody has any communist sentiments except the communists themselves, so for me, it's stunning. i worked in the archives and found some interesting material.
for me it's not just stunning, but shocking to see a young person in the united states think that socialism is an alternative, but on the other hand, i can see angela davis who with the kgb is still teaching. i'm stunned. how can that be possible and i also can tell that russia today, you know, the russia propaganda channel in english. they have like 500 people right now working in d.c. they run 12 minute interviews with the current american communist party chairman. who was promising a revolution. 12 minutes on the prime time, so they are still doing. i just really am grateful for you, and i hope you can rebrainwash those young people -- prof. kengor: de-brainwash. thank you, and lee edwards is
here, victims of communists foundation. google victims of communism memorial foundation. great website. they are helping to educate people on this as well, but the problem is that we're not learning this past. i mean, that's what it comes down to. i did a review of about 20 high school civics texts a few years back. they are basically the main 20 that are used across the united states, it is for the state of wisconsin, but it's incredible. in fact, this was right about the time -- this was three or four years after the seminal book by harvard university press, the black book of communism, had come out, which documented 100 million dead under communist governments. i couldn't find that in a textbook. not one. i could not find any figures at all, none whatsoever. 100 million dead -- by the way, the black book of communism only -- only -- has about 25 million
dead for the soviet union. when, in fact, it's probably 60 million to 70 million. a yale university press author, he was one of gorbachev's principle reformers on taxes him victims, how many people were actually killed by the communists. he said 60 million to 70 million were killed under stalin alone. we know that mao probably killed about 70 million, so really numbers are probably not 100 million, but 140 million when you really go up there, but as a conservative figure, it is at least 100 million. those numbers start to run together. think about this. take all the dead in world war i, which was the most destructive war in history up to that point. take all the dead in world war ii. combine them, world war i and ii, double them, and only then are you approaching the number
of dead victims in communism. everybody here has an uncle who died in world war ii. about 300,000 americans died in world war ii. the communists killed over 100 million people -- over 100 million people, and it is something that we don't know about. and if you read the communist manifesto, just go to marxist.org. i should not give an endorsement, but it is free. buy it online. i hate this nonsense i hear, i get called on by students at other universities who say, can you come here and give a talk on why communism is bad? because we don't know. i get up there and you hear again and again, stalin and these guys were an aberration. i mean, they did -- communism is really a good idea if you read it in theory. no. read the communist manifesto. it's 50 pages long. it's a horrible book.
read marx's 10 point plan. read the one little paragraph that says marx wrote, the entire theory of the communists is summed up in one sentence, abolition of private property. my three-year-old daughter can tell you that you're going to have to kill people if you do that. ok? abolition of private property? that's a good idea? i mean, that's -- that's craziness. i could look at that right there in 1850 and say, you know how many people are going to have to die? you're going to have to kill to paul that off? not a good idea in theory, which is why almost everywhere it's been tried, anywhere on the planet, whether in asia, africa, latin america or eastern europe, widespread bloodshed. and tragedy, again and again. a professor at the university of california at berkeley says that in each of these countries where communism has been tried, the
massive annihilation of human beings and repression and basic crimes and carnage far outdid anything in the previous experience or nationality or history of any of these countries. this was an entirely new thing. whether it's in cambodia or the soviet union, china, cuba, you name it, again and again and again, and we're not learning any of it, and the reason why is the wretched, wretched state of our universities that are not teaching this stuff, that are horribly biased, that do not believe in ideological diversity at all, and by the way, are way over-priced while we're at it. [laughter] prof. kengor: i'll stop there. how's that? [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> you can view our tv schedule, preview programs and watch college lectures and more. american history at c-span.org/ history. this week, a 1952 educational film that features of foreign trade skeptic and sets out to answer his concerns. here's a preview. clipo ] >> here at the figures for 1920. >> this is a movie, you know. >> i have a film that might make things much clearer. >> for 10 years after the first world war, as today, there was a great demand for our products all over the world.
this scramble for world markets resulted in some pretty shortsighted thinking. for incidents, some people read that all we had to do was to get our products onto ships bound for foreign ports and prosperity was guaranteed. they forgot a lot of this business was done on credit. we wanted our pay in dollars, and the only with the other fella could get dollars was to sell us something or send us gold. from our point of view, everything was rosy but from the other fellows point of view, things look entirely different. ♪ itbecause our tariffs made difficult to send us goods, other nations had to ship us gold. >> what is the matter with gold? >> nothing so long as it keeps moving. in return we were getting more gold than we could use. we ended up with 2/3 of the world's monetary supply.
>> dug this out of a hole in africa. now we're putting it back in a hole in kentucky. i don't get it. >> that's just it. nobody got it. only the countries that had gold could buy freely from us. the others had to take their goods elsewhere. foreign trade dried up in this accentuated the worldwide depression. >> now, look here, don't blame our depression on the lack of foreign trade. it could not have been that important. our foreignows trade is always amounted to less than 10% of our total business. if you'll ask my friend, i'll bet you he will back me up. >> no, i'm afraid you are wrong. the crippling of foreign trade was not the only factor in the depression but it was an important one. >> watch the entire film on sunday at 4 p.m. eastern on american history tv only on c-span 3.
>> recently american history tv was at the american historical association's meeting in denver colorado. we spoke to professors, authors, grad students on their research and this interview is about 15 minutes. >> rebecca hunt is a member of the american historical association. and your particular area of expertise is an early medicine and denver and pioneering. more so on hospitals in america or, when did we start seeing hospitals? >> we started seeing hospitals more at the latter half of the 19th century. 11 of health care was happening at homes, a community-based or family-based medicine. as that always happens, public hospitals o